Category Archives: Bush

McCain, Bush And Obama Renew Attacks On Deplorables

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Government, John McCain, Neoconservatism

John McCain issued a jeremiad, just the other day, in which he decried nationalism,  or America Firstism, in favor on internationalism and neoconservatism. He had the chutzpah to cloak this decidedly un-American baffle gab in the raiment of constitutionalism—the address was at the behest of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Has the Center read the Constitution? McCain sounds like a French Jacobin, not like an American Founding Father:

“We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” McCain intoned. “We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we don’t. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn’t deserve to.”

As it turns out, two former presidents of the UniParty joined McCain in an anti-Trump  message. Barack Obama first (10/19):

“Instead of our politics reflecting our values, we’ve got politics infecting our communities. Instead of looking for ways to work together and get things done in a practical way, we’ve got folks who are deliberately trying to make folks angry, to demonize people who have different ideas, to get the base all riled up because it provides a short-term tactical advantage.”

… if you believe in that better vision not just of our politics, but of our common life, of our democracy, of who we are; if you want that reflected in our government, if you want our kids to see our government and feel good about it, and feel like they’re represented and if you want those values that you are teaching your children reinforced … then you’ve got to go out there.”

Then it was George Bush’s turn. More so than Obama did Bush, a Gold Star neoconservative, trash the elemental idea that a government by the people is for THAT PEOPLE ALONE.

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism, [and] forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America.

Bush’s version of McCain’s propositionalism: “Our identity as a nation, and unlike many other nations, is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood. Being an American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility.”

Contra MSNBC bobble-heads who commented, the successor, President Donald Trump, is not taking the country down a road the internationalists abhor; what remains of The People is trying to take the country back.

UPDATED: Why Did Steve Bannon Use The Neo-Confederate Smear?

Bush, Cultural Marxism, Donald Trump, Education, History, Left-Liberalism, Neoconservatism, Republicans, States' Rights

Historian of the South Dr. Clyde Wilson comments on the Steve Bannon “60 Minutes” interview:

Did you all notice that Stephen Bannon in the TV interview equated “neo-Confederates” with neo-Nazis and the KKK? There is no such thing as a neo-Confederate. It is a leftist smear term for anyone who challenges their interpretation of history or thinks that the federal government is too big.

Differing interpretations of history are natural to free and civilized societies, which the U.S. is not. Hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom voted for Donald Trump, might be slandered as “neo-Confederates.” For that matter, it is very likely that the Nazis and KKK at Charlottesville were paid plants.

Why has Trump failed to expose and prosecute antifa? These are the same people who attacked his own rallies and inauguration. It would be a great opportunity to educate the people. Alas, like so much else inexplicable, the president is showing the usual Republican policy of never fighting back but always appearing “respectable.”

What Bannon said:

Bannon: “What he was trying to say is that people that support the monument staying there peacefully and people that oppose that, that’s the normal course of — of First Amendment. But he’s talking about the Neo-Nazis and Neo-Confederates and the Klan, who, by the way, are absolutely awful — there’s no room in American politics for that. There’s no room in American society for that. … And all Donald Trump was saying is, “Where does it end? Does it end in taking down the Washington Monument? Does it end in taking down Mount Rushmore? Does it end at taking Churchill’s bust out of the Oval Office?” My problem — my problem, and I told General Kelly this — when you side with a man, you side with him. I was proud to come out and try to defend President Trump in the media that day.”

MORE of Steve Bannon on 60 Minutes.

UPDATE: Best of Steve Bannon: “I hold these people in contempt, total and complete.” “George W. Bush and his entire national security apparatus, which included people like Condi Rice, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney.”

“I hold these people in contempt, total and complete contempt,” Bannon told Rose, adding that the former Bush administration officials get him riled up with anger like nothing else. “They’re idiots, and they’ve gotten us in this situation, and they question a good man like Donald Trump.”
Bannon blasted “the geniuses in the Bush administration that let China in the W.T.O.,” and reminded Rose that the “genius in the Bush administration told us, ‘Hey, they’re going to be a liberal democracy. They’re going to be free-market capitalism.’ The same geniuses that got us into Iraq.”

MORE.

Neoconservatives Will Love Sebastian Gorka’s Hyperventilation About A Hyperpower

Bush, Conflict, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Neoconservatism, War

Tonight, watch your favorite Fox News neoconservative. Chucky Krauthammer, Brian Kilmead and other neocons will be wallowing in the “greatness” of Sebastian Gorka’s hyperventilation about the US being a hyperpower.

“Don’t test American, and don’t test Donald J Trump”.
“We are not just a superpower,” Mr Gorka said. “We were a superpower, we are now a hyperpower … The message is very clear: Don’t test this White House.”
The word “hyperpower” refers to a nation that dominates in all areas, from economics and military might to cultural attitudes and language. The term was first popularised by French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine in 1999, when he suggested that the US had become a unilateral power that needed to be controlled.

Shades of DC operative Karl Rove, Bush II’s main man. Rove declared this during that “wonderfully” “vital” excursion into Iraq: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

Guess Whose Vast Special Ops Activity ‘Interferes’ In 137 Countries? Not Russia’s!

Bush, Communism, Foreign Policy, IMMIGRATION, Iraq, Islam, Terrorism

By Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

I would like to turn, first, to a significant, if very little-known, aspect of how our foreign policy functions: our nation’s wide-ranging “special operations” activities throughout the world.

Noted author on international affairs Nick Turse explores in detail this topic, examines its history and the exponential expansion of “special ops” activity, and raises some fundamental questions about its future use and its place in this country’s overall global strategy.

The major question, then, is whether the new Trump administration, with its mandate to review and redefine American priorities under the rubric of “America First,” will or even can integrate this nation’s vast special ops activity within a clear and realistic vision, reflecting President Trump’s enunciated agenda.

Is it advisable, the question should be asked, for American “advisors” to be on the ground in approximately 137 foreign countries … from East Timor to Malawi? Are our immediate interests and objectives clearly defined in each region where our special ops exist? And just what is our overall strategy dictating these interventions? Are we or should we be, indeed, the “world’s policeman”?

Except for North Korea, and China, the old international Communist threat ceased to exist long ago; true, a virulent form of Marxism continues to thrive in various incarnations, including most especially here (e.g., on campuses, in the media, in Hollywood, in Democratic Party enclaves) in the United States and in Western Europe. But the much larger, international threat to “peace” comes from global Islamic expansion and resultant terrorism, in Europe, in Africa, and increasingly, in America.

The United States has not won, outright, a major war since the end of the World War II. Yes, the Communists were fought to a shaky standstill in Korea, but American involvement in Vietnam was not exactly a shining success. The initially successful invasion of Iraq and intervention in Afghanistan have not yet produced the promised “democratic” triumphs heralded by the Bush administration. And the results of the tenures of Bill Clinton (Bosnia, Kosovo) and Barack Obama (Libya, Egypt) were, arguably, worse.

What, also, is the role of special ops in a world where mass immigration continues to dislocate traditional cultures and Islamic terrorism erupts in Western nations, largely as a result? These are critical questions that should be addressed.

Next, I’d like to direct you to a speech Vladimir Putin gave to the United Nations in September 2015. I think it quite instructive to compare this fascinating presentation, which is literally filled with substantial, if debatable, insights and observations, with speeches given by most of the other leaders in the world today. And I would suggest that Putin’s clear-headed approach to issues, certainly as he sees them, is one major reason why he emerged as one of the globe’s most important leaders, after the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the precipitous decline, economically and politically, of Russia under Boris Yeltsin.

Embedded in his particular vision for his nation in the post-Communist world there are insights and ideas that should be examined closely by the West. On display through his words are the experience and lessons learned by a former mid-level KGB officer who, yes, served the Soviet state in Dresden during the Cold War, but then not only renounced the KGB but helped defeat its attempted military coup to retake power in August 1991 … the lesson learned that inherent religious faith and nationalism are a much stronger and more profound force than Communist ideology … the lesson learned that worldwide Islamic terrorism can only be defeated by a worldwide cooperative effort … and the lesson learned that New World Order managerial globalism dehumanizes whomever it touches and destroys those traditions and that independence that make men truly human and free.

Debatable, yes; but certainly words to seriously consider.

*****

~ Dr. Boyd D. Cathey is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. In addition to writing for The Unz Review, Cathey writes for The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.